Restitution (Unjust Enrichment)Restitution - Basics
Restitution cases are hard to categorize due to the vast range of fact situations that can be involved - ie. they are not all just 'money' cases. For now I'll just list the cases separately until I come up with some organizing principles.
Restitution - Granger
Restitution - Grover
Restitution - Hollub
Restitution - Moore
Restitution - Palkowski
Restitution - Paton
Restitution - Professional
Restitution - Shoppers
Restitution - Welton
===== 121 Remedies / Unjust Enrichment / Proprietary Estoppel
Clarke v. Johnson (Ont CA, 2014) [*** this is a rich case, needs to be split a lot]
===== Unjust Enrichment / Ont CA
Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lily and Company (Ont CA, 2015)
===== equitable title defence of taking property unknowing of encumbrance [is this the same as taking property purchased from a thief?]
. Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Canada [there are 4 cases of this name, use the URL]
In Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Canada (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the equitable title defence of taking property unknowing of an encumbrance:
 First, in i Trade Finance Inc. v. Bank of Montréal, 2011 SCC 26,  2 S.C.R. 360, at paragraph 60, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the following explanation of the bona fide purchaser for value defence:========== equity
The full name of the equitable defence is ‘bona fide purchase of a legal interest for value without notice of a pre-existing equitable interest.’ The effect of the defence is to allow the defendant to hold its legal proprietary rights unencumbered by the pre-existing equitable proprietary rights. In other terms, where the defence operates, the pre-existing equitable proprietary rights are stripped away and lost in the transaction by which the defendant acquires its legal proprietary rights.
(L. Smith, The Law of Tracing (1997), at p. 386 (footnote omitted, underlining added))
- consider the cases used in /riesler re equity/quantum meruit etc
===== leading unjust enrichment case / SCC
- the two-part analysis of the absence of juristic reason provided for in Garland v. Consumers’ Gas, 2004 SCC 25 (CanLII),  1 S.C.R. 629.
===== unjust enrichment / SCC
- Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Canada; Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Ontario, 1992 CanLII 21 (SCC): unjust enrichment
. In Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC),  3 S.C.R. 813, the court established the compensatory model of support. This was followed by Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 420, which formally recognized compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual entitlements to support.
===== resulting trust / unjust enrichment
. Kerr v Baranow (SCC, 2011): "In Kerr, the Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive review of the financial and property rights of unmarried cohabiting parties on the break-down of their relationship."; resulting trusts [paras 12-29] and unjust enrichment [paras 30-]. The case essential reading for anyone involved in such issues.